Sorry but not all pornography is humiliating to women. As with any other industry in the world, there are demand-based differences, aren't there?

Are all cars manufactured in the world sports cars?
Is every building constructed done with an art deco design?
How many different kinds of beer are there in the world? Why do you think that is?

The problem with pornography is in the eye of the beholder and I'd bet green money that the biggest opponents of pornography are Americans, who've basically cornered the market on being ashamed of sex and thinking they're morally superior.

In the same sense you mention above, not all farm animals are treated in a cruel fashion, yet they exist within a context where they are exploited by human industry based on normative demands. Even though cruelty may not always play a factor, the overarching exploitation is constant.

Porn actors/actresses work within an industry that intensifies existing sexual behavior and gender roles, at the same time manufacturing new standards for sexual behavior by virtue of pornography's massive consumption. Being forced to conform to industry prescribed sexual norms in itself could be seen as a degradation and humiliation of sexuality, without porn actors/actresses having to feel any humiliation themselves.

The nature of the problem for me is the industrialization of sexual behavior and the uncertainty and perplexity of how it's going to affect us all in the long run.

I laughed a bit at the comparison of porn actors to farm animals! I can see your point but the difference is that the humiliation is felt and projected by only the viewer. Is porn exploitative? Certainly. But that's not to say all of it is humiliating.

As to the long-term effect: porn has been with us since cavemen painted on walls and I see it as a part of the (adult) human experience.

>> ^shuac:
As to the long-term affect: porn has been with us since cavemen painted on walls and I see it as a part of the (adult) human experience.


That's like saying farming has been with us for thousands of years, so we know what the effect of industrial farming and genetic manipulation are going to be, it's simply not true. Pornography is now a large scale profit driven industry seeing exponential growth (so far) and that is unprecedented.

Women with liberated sexuality also sometimes appreciate pictures or stories of humans being sexual (shocking, I know!).

To look at reality through a lens of continual wars between genders is a bit obsolete by now, I think. People are individuals first and gendered representatives second.

I agree, shuac. Not all porn involves humiliation. A lot of it does, but some doesn't. I'll still upvote for the discussion.

His views are seriously, seriously narrowly defined and would seem to paint anything erotic with the brush of 'degradation'.

Now, there certainly IS degradation in some pornography, and I've seen a disturbing trend in porn to go down this route which is quite sickening. BUT. images and video of people having sex does not immediately have to equal degradation to women. Look around and you can find 'porn' that is artful, shows the women being treated well, shows the women being pleasured over the men, and is all round just great material to be aroused by, especially with a partner.

Yes there is a lot of bad porn and porn that treats women as objects and degrades them, but let's not say ALL adult entertainment is EVIL and degrading and liken it to child abuse, that's just a horrendously simple and closed minded view.

Bah, actors and actresses have guilds that can negotiate proper wages. Porn dittos should just make the same. If they don't want to do it, they shouldn't do it. It's not a "last resort", bullcrap! You can always clean toilets or work in walmart.

What happened to you Chomsky? You used to be cool.

Pornography is one of the most significant and valuable achievements of the human race to date - possibly only the scientific method ranks higher.

Remember that sexual desire is fundamentally a trick played upon us by a primeval passenger in our body, the mass of genes that made us and that require propagation to survive. As a tool, porn provides for relief of the breeding urge in a way unprecedented in nature; essentially separating (or liberating) man from the hormonally-enforced rules imposed upon our minds, and those of all other successful animals, by innumerable years spent under the cruel yoke of evolution.

Suddenly, thanks to the glorious power of our miraculous minds, we find ourselves no longer struggling for a position in a shrinking and competitive world, but the masters of it; we need not cling to the crutches that carried us through a now defunct paradigm. We are a species evolving ourselves beyond evolution. The more we conquer our primitive instinct, the further we drive our triumphant acuity beyond the paths laid for it, the more we become like gods.

>> ^SpeveO:
>> ^shuac:
As to the long-term affect: porn has been with us since cavemen painted on walls and I see it as a part of the (adult) human experience.

That's like saying farming has been with us for thousands of years, so we know what the effect of industrial farming and genetic manipulation are going to be, it's simply not true. Pornography is now a large scale profit driven industry seeing exponential growth (so far) and that is unprecedented.

So you're equating genetic manipulation in farming with the mere expansion of a ten-thousand year old practice? Just checking.

And yes, just because a certain type of porn exists (a type you or I might not find pleasant) does not vilify the entire industry.

I'm very disappointed with Noam.

This is tantamount to saying that all sex is rape.

That interview could have used some Zach Galafianakis and his 'boo' button.

I might be wrong but I don't see where he mentioned he's opposed to pornography full stop, he specifically said he would like to eliminate the degradation of women, but that's certainly not the same thing, unless he defines the term more broadly than I do.

Did he just compare the wonderful ladies from Whore Ball Jugglers to the women working in a sweatshop?! Outrageous! Apparently Noam hasn't seen what kind of sausage fest these sweatshops can be!

Well, let's consider this: suddenly people have an urge to see homeless people so they can laugh at them. An industry emerges, paying homeless people a pittance for the right to film them. The films are silent and only show homeless people doing what they do everyday: being homeless. No first-hand degradation, no violence. Would Chomsky approve? No, and for the same reason he doesn't approve of pornography.

Would Chomsky approve then of a silent documentary showing the hardships of homeless people? Yes. Would Chomsky approve of erotic literature, photography and film? My guess would be again yes. It's all in the message and reception thereof.


I would guess that for the majority of men, seeing women as objects stems from the primal urge to simply fuck everything that moves. This can also apply to a lesser degree to women in regard to men. It depends on both nature and nurture. Sade even showed us quite graphically that we as a species are the most prone to criminality, in a very wide archaic sense, when we fuck (as it would seem we are wired not to care about anything else but attaining an orgasm).

However it doesn't mean that pornography, which caters to our sexual urges, is not degrading and objectifying women (here pornography should be taken to mean something along the lines of "the pornographic industry, including the viewers and the profit makers"). Pornography is something that ultimately should not exist in a civilized society, like violence and crime. No one would say violence and crime are needed in a society so that we may quench those violent and criminal urges we have, although most of us are indeed sometimes violent and criminally inclined. We are after all animals, programmed to survive and replicate (be violent and fuck, basically). But staying at the level of animals because it is pleasurable is ridiculous. If everyone thought like that, we'd still be living in trees.

I wonder what Noam watches to pleasure himself?

>> ^Bidouleroux:
However it doesn't mean that pornography, which caters to our sexual urges, is not degrading and objectifying women (here pornography should be taken to mean something along the lines of "the pornographic industry, including the viewers and the profit makers"). Pornography is something that ultimately should not exist in a civilized society, like violence and crime. No one would say violence and crime are needed in a society so that we may quench those violent and criminal urges we have, although most of us are indeed sometimes violent and criminally inclined. We are after all animals, programmed to survive and replicate (be violent and fuck, basically). But staying at the level of animals because it is pleasurable is ridiculous. If everyone thought like that, we'd still be living in trees.


But, see, you're taking the stance that images or movies of people having sex is inherently wrong. WHY?

Come on, if all the parties in the photos/videos are happy doing so, and no-one is hurt, no-one is treated badly, why is it wrong? Trying to build the fallacious argument that adult entertainment = violence and crime is ludicrous.

Violence and crime are doing bad things to other people, pure pornography, just showing people having sex is not. It CAN be if the acts depicted are violent or degrading, but that's swinging back to the violence and crime angle. If what's displayed is two people enjoying being with each other, what is wrong with that in any society?

You seem to dislike sex because it's a primal' urge and therefore wrong... so, we shouldn't eat then? Or at least not enjoy eating? We shouldn't have sex at all then?

To try and suggest that a civil society has no enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment is missing the point of life.

If you start from the point of view that THERE IS NOTHING wrong with sex, then as long as all people involved in the creation of porn are happy and healthy and enjoying themselves, then THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PORN.

It's just sad that there is a lot of mistreatment in the industry, but that doesn't mean the entire genre is wrong, just many of the people producing it.

Chomsky grew up in a time where pornography was taboo. His views were founded in that context, and it was partly from those viewpoints he based his arguments as far as I'm concerned. Is it really that surprising that an old man would say what Chomsky said here?

Personally, there's almost nothing I enjoy more that being degraded.
(ryjkyj returns to sift cave)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*promote for the discussion

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 5:20pm PDT - promote requested by dag.

Yeah, he lost the plot.. well, very early on, but the bit that really turned my head was comparing porn to child abuse (with the obvious indication that he is referring to consentual adult pornograph as opposed to pedophilic movies).

His narrow minded, self righteous view on the world not withstanding, what a load of tripe. There is a burgeoning amateur porn "industry" (considering these people don't get paid in general) that rides right alongside the "sweat shop"-esque pro porn circuit.

Question: In amateur porn, who the hell is being degraded? The consenting couple who fumble their way through coitus while one of them tries frantically to zoom in using the remote camera control while trying to look debonaire with a 3 inch willy? Mebbe the hapless masturbator that clicked on the link expecting "sexy Helga and Sven" and instead he get's 2 50 something 400lb elephant skins madly trying to create an earthquake...

Either which way, every person should feel free to express their sexuality in their own way with only a few notable exceptions (kids, dead, rape and animals) as long as they respect others rights as well.

And that's where Noam falls down. It's not good enough that he's morally right, everyone else has to subscribe to his views. The porn industry seems to respect his right not to view it, is he so discourteous that he cannot return the favour?

LEAVE THE FARM ANALOGY!

It's nonsense, porn actors/actresses have the choice between doing it, and not doing it. Any sense of the phrase being "forced" into porn acting is nonsense under any reasonable classification of the word "porn" (ie. that 'porn' doesn't fall more accurately under the term 'rape' or 'slavery'). They make the choice to enter into porn acting. If they need money to pay the bills so they feel they have to be in porn, then i can show them plenty of jobs where they don't have to take their clothes off, and i can show them homeless people that don't act in porn and also have nothing. That's why porn actors/actresses have a choice, and farm animals don't.

Most domesticated animals would be extinct now if not for being bred for food. I don't think the normal everyday cow in england has existed wild for god knows how long, every single one of them is bred on a farm for the objective of some form of harvesting - milk, meat, manure, breeding for further harvesting. Often some 3 of those at some stage in the life of the cow. If not for food purposes, these animals would be the way of the dinosaur, so it's hard to even present that as a form of exploitation as far as i'm concerned. Especially when you try to swing it by me as a type of exploitation similar to say sexual slavery, which has got to be just about the universal standard for REAL 'exploitation' in the truest form.

And finally, you're comparing the consciousness of a human to that of an animal.

Probably a bit late on all that, but i nearly shit a brick when i saw that "farm" comparison.

>> ^shuac:

So you're equating genetic manipulation in farming with the mere expansion of a ten-thousand year old practice? Just checking.
And yes, just because a certain type of porn exists (a type you or I might not find pleasant) does not vilify the entire industry.


It's funny to see how people react to the farm comparison. I could use any industry and contrast certain aspects of it with pornography because they share a lot of commonality, uhh, no surprise there. I am equating them on the unpredictability and problems of a large scale industry and how it's going to shape and change human behavior. It's not 'mere expansion' there is far more complexity involved than that.

And a clarification on my stance on 'humiliation', another analogy for you.

Bill O Reilly is a 'journalist'. I would hope that most of you would think that he is a humiliation to the principles of journalism, but does he himself feel humiliated? I doubt it. He's paid well, he has massive support from his network and his fan base, he chose to be there, etc etc.

In the same vain some porn actress who shoots a bukkake video may love being cummed on by 20 guys, she would fight for her right to be able to do it, and she might not feel humiliated at all. She has an industry and fan base that supports her, she chose to be there etc etc.

Whether or not it's a humiliation of sexuality is all going to depend on peoples individual stances, and just like journalism the pendulum will swing from one extreme to another with a lot of grey area in between, all of it based on the same principle but with very different outcomes.

And dannym3141 you totally missed the thrust of my argument.

Aw man, I have this crazy feeling this is going to turn into Houston blankfist 500...

Let me check..................nope

Oops. See next post.

Someone is wrong on the Internet again, so here goes another long reply...

>> ^spoco2:
But, see, you're taking the stance that images or movies of people having sex is inherently wrong. WHY?

Where exactly do I say that? Please enlighten me. I took the time to define pornography as something that doesn't include the sexual images themselves and you somehow twist this and dare say that I think images and movies of people having sex are inherently wrong? Great non sequitur! Images of violence and criminality aren't inherently wrong either, but see, that doesn't mean violence and criminilaty themselves aren't wrong and that certainly doesn't mean that condoning violence and criminal behavior isn't wrong too. The latter point is the most relevant to pornography, since the sexual act itself isn't what is at stake here. But the act of pornography, defined to incorporate the objectification and degradation of women in a process of sexual gratification is inherently wrong, yes. If your images and movies do not objectify or degrade women for sexual gratification, then don't call it pornography.

Come on, if all the parties in the photos/videos are happy doing so, and no-one is hurt, no-one is treated badly, why is it wrong? Trying to build the fallacious argument that adult entertainment = violence and crime is ludicrous.

I am not equating "adult entertainment" to "violence and crime". Stop trying to subtly change the terms, you're not fooling anyone here (I would hope so). I am making an analogy between pornography and violence/crime. If you don't know the difference between "to equate" and "to make an analogy", I'm sorry for you.

Violence and crime are doing bad things to other people, pure pornography, just showing people having sex is not. It CAN be if the acts depicted are violent or degrading, but that's swinging back to the violence and crime angle. If what's displayed is two people enjoying being with each other, what is wrong with that in any society?

"Pure pornography" doesn't exist. It's your own little semantic wet dream. In any form of communication there is always a message that is inherent in the message itself, given by the outside context or a combination of both. When the context changes, for example when society evolves, the same message can mean other things that what was intended at first. Sade is a great example: condemned as immoral scum by even the most liberal representatives of the Enlightenment, he was then seen simply as a curious pathological case and then recently as a literary genius. Still, his books and their contents haven't changed in 200 years.

You seem to dislike sex because it's a primal' urge and therefore wrong... so, we shouldn't eat then? Or at least not enjoy eating? We shouldn't have sex at all then?
To try and suggest that a civil society has no enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment is missing the point of life.

I would suggest you acquaint yourself with the philosophy of Epicurus. Of course his views are dated now, but you could certainly use a confrontation with a well thought out viewpoint on pleasure and enjoyment that doesn't involve giving way to every desire that comes across your primitive mind.

If you start from the point of view that THERE IS NOTHING wrong with sex, then as long as all people involved in the creation of porn are happy and healthy and enjoying themselves, then THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PORN.

Ok then, if I start from the view that THERE IS NOTHING wrong with lying (a natural action for all of us), then as long as all people involved in the creation of propaganda are happy and healthy and enjoying themselves, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROPAGANDA? (and here I use propaganda in its pejorative sense, obviously) Your logic is spotless, but your premises are false.

It's just sad that there is a lot of mistreatment in the industry, but that doesn't mean the entire genre is wrong, just many of the people producing it.

The misapplying of an idea or concept by some individuals does not in anyway guarantee the correctness of that idea or concept. I do not see how you could present this blanket statement as an argument. The following is also not an argument concerning pornography by the way: "It's just fun that there is a lot of happiness in the industry, but that doesn't mean the entire genre is right, just many of the people producing it." You just threw something about pornography in the middle of something irrelevant about mistreatment in pornography. In other words, you've put a red herring in your straw man. Again, you're not fooling anyone.

^dannym3141:
Let me check..................nope

Let me explain why you missed the thrust of my argument.

In pornography women are sexually exploited, regardless of whether they are humiliated or not, just as on farms animals are ultimately exploited or slaughtered whether they are treated cruelly or not. I'm not comparing the consciousness of animals to that of humans, I'm not talking about whether or not they have a choice, you just missed the point.

>> ^dannym3141:

Most domesticated animals would be extinct now if not for being bred for food. I don't think the normal everyday cow in england has existed wild for god knows how long, every single one of them is bred on a farm for the objective of some form of harvesting - milk, meat, manure, breeding for further harvesting. Often some 3 of those at some stage in the life of the cow. If not for food purposes, these animals would be the way of the dinosaur, so it's hard to even present that as a form of exploitation as far as i'm concerned.

This is just a bizarre statement. The reason domesticated animals exist is because we have been exploiting them for thousands of years, starting with wild animals that have been manipulated and bred to into the more subservient 'domestic' forms. To nullify their exploitation based on our constant demand and need for their produce for our own survival is ridiculous and selfish.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
Someone is wrong on the Internet again, so here goes another long reply... *snip*

Ok, so you try to suggest that I'm linking things together that you never did... let's go back to your original post:

"Well, let's consider this: suddenly people have an urge to see homeless people so they can laugh at them. An industry emerges, paying homeless people a pittance for the right to film them. The films are silent and only show homeless people doing what they do everyday: being homeless. No first-hand degradation, no violence. Would Chomsky approve? No, and for the same reason he doesn't approve of pornography."
You're creating these ridiculous analogies and hypothesis that really have no baring on this. Again, you're assuming the thing being filmed is wrong. You, here are saying that homelessness and being homeless is wrong/degrading, so you're trying to link 'laughing at homeless people' with 'watching people have sex'. You're assuming that the people having sex should feel ashamed or watching them having sex is the same as laughing at homeless people.

It's not.

In any way, so you can just stop trying to create these ridiculous links.

Would Chomsky approve then of a silent documentary showing the hardships of homeless people? Yes. Would Chomsky approve of erotic literature, photography and film? My guess would be again yes. It's all in the message and reception thereof.
I truly get the impression he dislikes anything to do with sex in media, at least he pretends to, tries to sound morally outraged. The thing is, it's shown to be so often the case that the ones screaming the loudest over these 'moral issues' are closet consumers of some of the worst stuff. Time and time again men of the cloth or other 'moral crusaders' have been shown to be engaging in, or consuming exactly the stuff they publicly decry. It seems to be that these people are brought up with the skewed moral stance of 'sex is wrong unless it's with the light off, between man and wife', and yet they have these attractions to sexual material. Their given solution? Try to blame anyone who created the sexual material as if it's their fault that they were 'tempted', rather than seeing that sex in and of itself is not wrong.


"I would guess that for the majority of men, seeing women as objects stems from the primal urge to simply fuck everything that moves. This can also apply to a lesser degree to women in regard to men. It depends on both nature and nurture. Sade even showed us quite graphically that we as a species are the most prone to criminality, in a very wide archaic sense, when we fuck (as it would seem we are wired not to care about anything else but attaining an orgasm)."
See, you, here equate sex with violence. You certainly come across as having the opinion that sex is bad because it makes us all criminals and violent. Absolute bullshit.

Yes there are those who completely succumb to 'primal urges' and are violent to people and forcibly have sex with others... but just because some people are like that you're going to label everyone like that? You use examples from Sade, from the 18th and 19th centuries... people were a LOT less educated, a LOT less enlightened, and a LOT more prone to act out anything they felt.

The deal with education, with being taught about the feelings of others, about becoming more enlightened people is this: We don't have to be violent, we can manage our anger if we get annoyed, we can get aroused by someone and yet know it's not appropriate to just try and have sex with them. This is because we have been brought up to be able to empathize and think 'hmm, I probably wouldn't like to be fucked by this other person just because they want to. I'd prefer to be able to chose who I have sex with'.

However it doesn't mean that pornography, which caters to our sexual urges, is not degrading and objectifying women (here pornography should be taken to mean something along the lines of "the pornographic industry, including the viewers and the profit makers"). Pornography is something that ultimately should not exist in a civilized society, like violence and crime. No one would say violence and crime are needed in a society so that we may quench those violent and criminal urges we have, although most of us are indeed sometimes violent and criminally inclined. We are after all animals, programmed to survive and replicate (be violent and fuck, basically). But staying at the level of animals because it is pleasurable is ridiculous. If everyone thought like that, we'd still be living in trees.

See, reading that, I don't know how you can suggest that you haven't equated pornography with violence. You try to create some weird definition of what pornography is to be included in this thing. I say that pornography is something that is made with the sole intention of arousing the viewer/reader, whereas erotica is something which is more artful, but can still be arousing. Neither of these are inherently wrong.

Insert violence or degradation into them and they are, but you seem to think the very act of recording people having sex is degrading, so you're viewpoint is quite, quite skewed.

You bring up the Marquis a fair bit, you try to equate watching people have sex with watching people being homeless... you have some issues regarding sex, you do, no two ways about it, and that's not me drawing some weird links, that's just reading what you've written.

Downvote for Chomsky clearly talking out of his ass. He's normally a pretty astute guy but his argument here is just ridiculous. Clearly he hasn't explored the issue at all and is just trying as much as possible to disassociate himself from Hustler magazine.

Some questions for those on here that say porn exploits women: could you clarify what exactly you mean by this? You are aware there is a thriving gay porn industry, correct? Even leaving gay porn aside, there are males participating in the majority of porn films and they have clearly been chosen because of certain *ahem* "physical characteristics." Would you say they aren't being exploited but the women are?

Of course it's not just women. Exploitation is defined as 'to employ to the greatest possible advantage', or 'to make use of selfishly or unethically'. If you are gay, heterosexual, transsexual, a midget, whatever, the majority of pornography is aimed at producing a product for profit, and people in porn are exploited sexually to maxmise the profit potential. Again, look at the definition. There is no underlying social cause, the porn industry is not trying to liberate people sexually first and make a profit second. Just because you can look at the fringes of an industry and see products that are created based on stronger ethical and social foundations doesn't indemnify the majority of that industry from criticism. In the same vain you can't vilify pornography absolutely. People are always unwilling to look critically at those things they enjoy, for they fear the guilt of their enjoyment. There are problems with pornography, but that doesn't mean that the people who criticize it are trying to steal and ban your lube from you. I love chocolate, I'm not going to stop eating it because most of the worlds cocoa comes from exploited farmers, but at least I'm willing to criticise the product I partake of. Only through that critical awareness can you even begin to make steps towards improving the conditions of production, and if you buy into 'free market' principles at least you can then make an informed vote with your dollar for a product that you feel is less exploitative to those industry workers involved in its creation.

I also doubt Noam's views are as narrow as they seem to be in this interview. You have to look at the vast body of his work and once you understand the broad nature in which he views our society politically and ethically it would make sense that he would outright denounce pornography in a short interview and no doubt clarify later. Why are people so quick to forget the huge body of work this man has written? Do you really think that the views of an academic as prolific, articulate and brilliant as Chomsky have been summarized in totality in this little interview? Give the man some credit and don't be so fickle.

Broad generalizations seem to make the best conversation pieces. This is no different... I only up voted because of the conversation.

I'm with Noam in his ideal of eliminating degradation, but saying all pornography is degradation is ridiculous.

I wonder what his views on gay porn would be, seeing as they don't have any frail, defenseless, only-have-a-choice-because-men-give-them-one women being degraded in them.

All of his nonsense implicitly assumes that sex is bad---or at least vulgar, that women don't actually enjoy sex on the same (base/animal) level as some men, and that porn is only there for the pleasure of men.

Sexist, old-school poppycock, all of it.


PS: Chomsky, who reads every major US paper daily and has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things America (among other things), has never even heard of Hustler magazine? Larry Flynt? For someone with such a strong opinion on pornography he seems uncharacteristically ill-prepared to talk about it.

My predictable reply is:

Chomsky rocks.

Americans thinking that they are morally superior to the rest of the world has nothing to do with the argument against pornography. However, maybe those who oppose pornography ARE morally superior to those who don't. "Ashamed of sex." Ha! Morally developed people understand that porn is not the same as sex, and they are ashamed of it. Yes, we ought to cultivate healthy sexual practices and, like Chomsky says, "have nothing to do with" immoral ones.

>> ^thepinky:
My predictable reply is:
Chomsky rocks.
Americans thinking that they are morally superior to the rest of the world has nothing to do with the argument against pornography. However, maybe those who oppose pornography ARE morally superior to those who don't. "Ashamed of sex." Ha! Morally developed people understand that porn is not the same as sex, and they are ashamed of it. Yes, we ought to cultivate healthy sexual practices and, like Chomsky says, "have nothing to do with" immoral ones.


Mebbe those that don't try to dictate to others how they choose to live (when they are acting within the laws and their conscience) are morally superior to idealistic, insistent proselytizers with axes to grind? (referring to Noam specifically, but you may feel sideswiped by association)

*length=03:35

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 3:35 - length declared by cricket.